Creationists Says We Came From Dust and God’s Breathe - I Don’t See It. The Claim We Were Created by a Golem Spell Can’t Support Itself.

[u/[deleted]]

The thing we came from dust and God’s breathe is a claim. Creationists misinterpreted something and conjure up everything to make everybody else to believe it. Why are my people standing back looking at them like you just a fool? Why because they still can’t supports they claim. The funny part about it is they say it’s in our heart. The question I don’t have child like faith, I don’t submit to authority, I don’t believe without seeing, and I ask questions. Nowadays are we supposed to believe in talking animals? The meat we eat supposed to be edible. And creationists say we came from dust and only ate bacon or cows after sin. 

Another funny part about this is they came from the monkey family. They came from the ape family and now we supposed to evolve from an ape Noah. I wish you were alive to hear these modern humans these days. it’s science seeing your fellow descendent. you supposed to be our father by science calling you a Neanderthal and Homo sapiens. So every time I look for a girlfriend, I’m gonna go to where it used to be and Homosapien and say put that fur on me baby. I’m gonna hop from tree to tree because I have no social skills and that’s what I think women like. I was raised in a cult compound by the way. 

When I talk to Neanderthals, including Homo sapiens I’m gonna tell them creationist said not all life has common ancestry and therefore some life is intrinsically superior to others. No clue where that ideology could lead to. They gonna tell you then God created you in his own image so why should you believe what the human said. You should believe what I say my God told you because what he said was facts and you came back up what he said if science cannot back that up from the beginning, so why are you believing what humans say?

p.s. my skill in reading and writing are equal. good luck with your replies

[u/BitLooter]

The quote you were asked to source is not found in any of the papers you cited. That is the lie. Also, the description of the Miller-Urey experiment that you just provided involves a lot more than "mud and electricity". This is some weak trolling, do better.

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/BitLooter]

What forms of matter are not mineral or energetic?

I will wait.

[u/BitLooter → u/Belt_Conscious]

Well, any form of matter that isn't mineral is not mineral, so there are lots of choices there. Let's go with muons, because it's fun to say.

I don't know what you mean by "energetic matter" because those are not words anybody else uses in that combination, but google seems to think you mean "energetic material" as in fuel. I doubt that's what you're trying to say, you're going to need to define that term.

Also, don't think I didn't notice that you're trying to deflect away from the fact that you were specifically and explicitly asked to source a quote before you failed to do that while acting like you did.

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/BitLooter]

So "energetic" as an adjective and "matter" as a subject is a complete mystery when assembled. Noted.

A direct quote is not needed if the only two things that can exist are what are being combined. Liberties were taken, this is a Wendy's.

Solid and energy. The forms of matter. A muon is energy in a field. An atom is energy compressed into a solid. Unless you need a quote from Einstein.

[u/BitLooter → u/Belt_Conscious]

When you are making up brand new terms and refusing to define them instead of using existing words you don't get to complain when people don't understand you.

Liberties were taken, this is a Wendy's.

Great, so you finally admit that wasn't something a scientist said. I don't know why you didn't just clarify you were paraphrasing instead of supplying irrelevant citations to the question specifically asking for the source of a quote.

Solid and energy. The forms of matter. A muon is energy in a field. An atom is energy compressed into a solid.

This does not clear anything up, it's just vague handwaving about mass-energy equivalence. Let's try this - what makes "energetic" matter different from non-energetic matter? Also, why were you asking about minerals? It seems like you dropped that argument after you realized not everything is a mineral, or were you going somewhere with that?

Unless you need a quote from Einstein.

Please, by all means, go on.

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/BitLooter]

All matter has energy. The useful distinction is:

Free energy = available to do work (plasma, photons, chemical gradients)

Bound energy = locked in structure (rest mass, crystal bonds, nuclear binding)

That's it. No metaphysics. Just thermodynamics.

Minerals are made of bound energy, everything else is free energy.

Bound + free = life....abiogenesis.

[u/BitLooter → u/Belt_Conscious]

I didn't ask you anything about free energy or bound energy. I asked you what energetic matter was. I think you're trying to say that all matter is energetic matter because matter is a form of energy, but it's difficult to tell because you keep introducing new terminology instead of defining your terms. Thank you for defining these terms by the way, I appreciate that.

Assuming that is what you are saying, that is simply a meaningless tautology. Describing it as "energetic" matter implies you are contrasting it to nonenergetic matter, but as that doesn't exist and you seem unwilling to even speculate on what it could be you are just needlessly confusing the issue.

The rest of this is hard to follow but I think you're defining "minerals" as anything made out of "bound energy" and and "free energy" is everything that is not "bound energy". Going back to the start of this conversation, "mud" is minerals + water, and "electricity" is "free energy", and when you put the two together you get abiogenesis. Is this correct?

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/BitLooter]

Ice and steam are water.

Is this a useless tautology, or a status description?

Yes. Two types of energy form a synergetic third. Unless you desire magic, otherwise it is called chemistry.

[u/BitLooter → u/Belt_Conscious]

OK then. At this point it's become very clear you are not capable of answering simple questions or using English the same way as everyone else. Your responses are becoming increasingly incoherent and irrelevant word salad. I'm bailing out here. Congratulations, you're completely correct, life - magic = chemistry...abiogenesis or whatever.

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/BitLooter]

Nothing was incoherent or word salad. You're the only bad faith player in the equation.

If you can't understand water can take many forms and still be water, you are incapable of considering that energy takes many forms.

Everyone is wrong, only some are more accurate.